A new trend in politics that must be squashed under boot.

I dunno, I asked him, but if that is what he means it's no wonder he ran away. He knows what I'll do with that. I was hoping he had come up with something else. Guess not.
Are you confused about how history works?

Not nearly like you are about how spelling works. Holy crap that was a bus full of nuns crash.
It was seven words. All seem to be fine. I'm pretty much able to misspell some things but I have my pet peeves. For the benefit of the class can you please correct my seven word nun crash? I'm thinking all the nun's are going to live through this just fine. Not even a scratch.

Not that post --- the previous one.

"Cleagles".

"Senator Bird".

Bus was pretty well off the road at that point. We won't even go to the coherency other than to note that the bars in Missouri must definitely be open on Sunday.
Then why didn't you quote and rebut that post? Hit a bit too close to reality for you to deal with?

Too incoherent to even navigate.

For one (just one) thing, the Klan was built around K-alliterations. Ku Klux Klan... Kleagles... Klaverns... Kloran. It was the whole point of generating a silly social club, and the idea of a guy named Kennedy.
 
The right does it as much as the left, sure.
The right is not trying to change history or whitewash it. In this aspect the left is in overdrive
...and they do not want force their lifestyle on other people like progressives do.
Like Socialism/socialized medicine onPeople that want nothing to do with it, cannot afford it and will never use it. Fuck the village
Must be nice to be immortal, super duper.
 
Judging today based on historical standards and judging the past based on today's standards.

Both are polar opposites of of each other but being widely used today, especially by the radical left as well as the uninformed.

On one hand we have historical figures being wiped from sight based on today's so called acceptable standards.
On the other hand we have people claiming historical figures (Reagan, King etc) would apply today's standards to their historical positions.

Both are ridiculous and are unprovable because the political climate of yesterday is not the same as today.

The radical left wants to preach that we must learn from history by studying it at the same time they strive to erase it. When it suits their cause they are all to happy to point to historical travestys in their arguments all the while trying to whitewash that history. Then they go on to make baseless proclamations about what certain historical figures would do or say based on modern political thinking.

It's all a bunch of bullshit masquerading as fact to win over the gullible or to win an argument that they otherwise could not win based on the facts as we know them today.
The founders worried about the rich taking over our democracy and their concerns have come true. Some things are the same today as they were 100 years ago. Not that much has changed
 
Judging today based on historical standards and judging the past based on today's standards.

Both are polar opposites of of each other but being widely used today, especially by the radical left as well as the uninformed.

On one hand we have historical figures being wiped from sight based on today's so called acceptable standards.
On the other hand we have people claiming historical figures (Reagan, King etc) would apply today's standards to their historical positions.

Both are ridiculous and are unprovable because the political climate of yesterday is not the same as today.

The radical left wants to preach that we must learn from history by studying it at the same time they strive to erase it. When it suits their cause they are all to happy to point to historical travestys in their arguments all the while trying to whitewash that history. Then they go on to make baseless proclamations about what certain historical figures would do or say based on modern political thinking.

It's all a bunch of bullshit masquerading as fact to win over the gullible or to win an argument that they otherwise could not win based on the facts as we know them today.
The founders worried about the rich taking over our democracy and their concerns have come true. Some things are the same today as they were 100 years ago. Not that much has changed
The Founding Fathers were much more worried about the government taking over our republic. Their concerns have come true.
 
Judging today based on historical standards and judging the past based on today's standards.

Both are polar opposites of of each other but being widely used today, especially by the radical left as well as the uninformed.

On one hand we have historical figures being wiped from sight based on today's so called acceptable standards.
On the other hand we have people claiming historical figures (Reagan, King etc) would apply today's standards to their historical positions.

Both are ridiculous and are unprovable because the political climate of yesterday is not the same as today.

The radical left wants to preach that we must learn from history by studying it at the same time they strive to erase it. When it suits their cause they are all to happy to point to historical travestys in their arguments all the while trying to whitewash that history. Then they go on to make baseless proclamations about what certain historical figures would do or say based on modern political thinking.

It's all a bunch of bullshit masquerading as fact to win over the gullible or to win an argument that they otherwise could not win based on the facts as we know them today.
The founders worried about the rich taking over our democracy and their concerns have come true. Some things are the same today as they were 100 years ago. Not that much has changed
They certainly were not worried about the rich taking over. Can you show one quote where they expressed such a concern?
 
Judging today based on historical standards and judging the past based on today's standards.

Both are polar opposites of of each other but being widely used today, especially by the radical left as well as the uninformed.

On one hand we have historical figures being wiped from sight based on today's so called acceptable standards.
On the other hand we have people claiming historical figures (Reagan, King etc) would apply today's standards to their historical positions.

Both are ridiculous and are unprovable because the political climate of yesterday is not the same as today.

The radical left wants to preach that we must learn from history by studying it at the same time they strive to erase it. When it suits their cause they are all to happy to point to historical travestys in their arguments all the while trying to whitewash that history. Then they go on to make baseless proclamations about what certain historical figures would do or say based on modern political thinking.

It's all a bunch of bullshit masquerading as fact to win over the gullible or to win an argument that they otherwise could not win based on the facts as we know them today.
The founders worried about the rich taking over our democracy and their concerns have come true. Some things are the same today as they were 100 years ago. Not that much has changed
They certainly were not worried about the rich taking over. Can you show one quote where they expressed such a concern?
Hello you rate it has happened before with the Industrial Revolution robber barons Etc but now our inequality and upward Mobility are even worse after 35 years of giveaway to the rich and cuts and services and benefits for the rest.
 
Judging today based on historical standards and judging the past based on today's standards.

Both are polar opposites of of each other but being widely used today, especially by the radical left as well as the uninformed.

On one hand we have historical figures being wiped from sight based on today's so called acceptable standards.
On the other hand we have people claiming historical figures (Reagan, King etc) would apply today's standards to their historical positions.

Both are ridiculous and are unprovable because the political climate of yesterday is not the same as today.

The radical left wants to preach that we must learn from history by studying it at the same time they strive to erase it. When it suits their cause they are all to happy to point to historical travestys in their arguments all the while trying to whitewash that history. Then they go on to make baseless proclamations about what certain historical figures would do or say based on modern political thinking.

It's all a bunch of bullshit masquerading as fact to win over the gullible or to win an argument that they otherwise could not win based on the facts as we know them today.
The founders worried about the rich taking over our democracy and their concerns have come true. Some things are the same today as they were 100 years ago. Not that much has changed
They certainly were not worried about the rich taking over. Can you show one quote where they expressed such a concern?
Hello you rate it has happened before with the Industrial Revolution robber barons Etc but now our inequality and upward Mobility are even worse after 35 years of giveaway to the rich and cuts and services and benefits for the rest.
I said quote one of the founders saying they feared that the rich might take over.

You failed.
 
Some have forgot the GOP and its racism beginning with its abandonment of the blacks in 1876 and after. Many of the Pubs still do and support racist policies. Some dems like Byrd changed their ways and became good people on race matters. Some like Strom Thurmond would not even acknowledge their bastard black children though they lived to be 100.

The worst thing is that the GOP want to tell people of color they are too dumb to take care of themselves yet should come and be Pubs.

How stupid.
 
The above is an excellent argument against the far right that wants to revise history and somehow make JFKs the alt right of their day. Nonsense.

Jake's KKK democrat Party wants to Stalin erase all vestiges of the racist foundings

Too bad there aren't any huh.

Perhaps the second (1915) one, although that guy (Simmons) was just out for opportunism (money). But the original was just a social club modeled after a college fraternity until it got taken over by regional elements.
So it wasn't like Gone With the Wind? Ashley and them out to protect the women folk?

Not for the founders, no. They were just bored over a Christmas and created an alliterative prank. The silly rituals and goofy costumes and K-alliterations were taken over months later by existing elements like "night riders" who had been running since at least the 18th century. Interestingly Abe Lincoln's father was one.

I've actually never seen Gone With the Wind. Maybe I should.

Before you sit down with Gone With the Wind, be sure you have plenty of food and drink on hand. My mother took me to see it when I was a kid, before the age of video. When I got to college, I went with a boyfriend to see it. After one iconic scene, he turned and asked me where I wanted to go to dinner. I had to tell him to sit back down. It was the intermission.
 
The above is an excellent argument against the far right that wants to revise history and somehow make JFKs the alt right of their day. Nonsense.

Jake's KKK democrat Party wants to Stalin erase all vestiges of the racist foundings

Too bad there aren't any huh.

Perhaps the second (1915) one, although that guy (Simmons) was just out for opportunism (money). But the original was just a social club modeled after a college fraternity until it got taken over by regional elements.
So it wasn't like Gone With the Wind? Ashley and them out to protect the women folk?

Not for the founders, no. They were just bored over a Christmas and created an alliterative prank. The silly rituals and goofy costumes and K-alliterations were taken over months later by existing elements like "night riders" who had been running since at least the 18th century. Interestingly Abe Lincoln's father was one.

I've actually never seen Gone With the Wind. Maybe I should.

Before you sit down with Gone With the Wind, be sure you have plenty of food and drink on hand. My mother took me to see it when I was a kid, before the age of video. When I got to college, I went with a boyfriend to see it. After one iconic scene, he turned and asked me where I wanted to go to dinner. I had to tell him to sit back down. It was the intermission.

Maybe that's why I never watched it. :eusa_think:

I should just go get the Cliff's Notes. I'm not a fan of movies in general; a bad one is always slow torture.
 
The above excellently argues against a far right that wants to revise history and somehow make for instance JFKs the alt right of their day. Nonsense.

c4a.jpg


Uncle Joe teaching his democrat Party proteges how to erase their KKK past
 
Jake's KKK democrat Party wants to Stalin erase all vestiges of the racist foundings

Too bad there aren't any huh.

Perhaps the second (1915) one, although that guy (Simmons) was just out for opportunism (money). But the original was just a social club modeled after a college fraternity until it got taken over by regional elements.
So it wasn't like Gone With the Wind? Ashley and them out to protect the women folk?

Not for the founders, no. They were just bored over a Christmas and created an alliterative prank. The silly rituals and goofy costumes and K-alliterations were taken over months later by existing elements like "night riders" who had been running since at least the 18th century. Interestingly Abe Lincoln's father was one.

I've actually never seen Gone With the Wind. Maybe I should.

Before you sit down with Gone With the Wind, be sure you have plenty of food and drink on hand. My mother took me to see it when I was a kid, before the age of video. When I got to college, I went with a boyfriend to see it. After one iconic scene, he turned and asked me where I wanted to go to dinner. I had to tell him to sit back down. It was the intermission.

Maybe that's why I never watched it. :eusa_think:

I should just go get the Cliff's Notes. I'm not a fan of movies in general; a bad one is always slow torture.
The usual, woman (Scarlett) oves a guy (Ashley) who marries someone else, wise-cracking smuggler loves her, even though he knows she loves the other guy, the guys go off to the Civil War, poverty on the wrecked plantation, she marries smuggler, she's a social embarrassment, he first is determined to spoil her into loving him, then it's "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Get the Cliff Notes.

Big Stuff in 1939 when my mother was young, along with the Wizard of Oz. Huge budget, special effects, I think one of the first films to be shot in color. There is a hilarious still of Ashley's wife, in bed swooning (childbirth scene) with her arm across her forehead, being attended by Scarlett. Ashley's wife has, in her other hand, a copy of the script.
 
The above excellently argues against a far right that wants to revise history and somehow make for instance JFKs the alt right of their day. Nonsense.

c4a.jpg


Uncle Joe teaching his democrat Party proteges how to erase their KKK past

Would that be the KKK past where they worked to get Ed Jackson, Owen Brewster, Ben Paulen, Clarence Morley, George Luis Baker, Albert Johnson and Rice Means elected while endorsing Coolidge and Hoover? You know, the one that opposed Jack Walton, Stetson Kennedy, Huey Long, Ellis Arnall, Oscar Underwood, FDR and Sam Johnson, burned a cross on LBJ's lawn and ran a smear campaign against Al Smith?

Trying to 'erase' all that are we? Care for a little D.C. Stephenson with a splash of David Duke?

Fun fact, since you bring up "Uncle Joe" --- McCarthy used to be a Democrat. When it was convenient of course. This was before he ran HUAC.

Btw is that Paul McCartney in your pic?
 
Too bad there aren't any huh.

Perhaps the second (1915) one, although that guy (Simmons) was just out for opportunism (money). But the original was just a social club modeled after a college fraternity until it got taken over by regional elements.
So it wasn't like Gone With the Wind? Ashley and them out to protect the women folk?

Not for the founders, no. They were just bored over a Christmas and created an alliterative prank. The silly rituals and goofy costumes and K-alliterations were taken over months later by existing elements like "night riders" who had been running since at least the 18th century. Interestingly Abe Lincoln's father was one.

I've actually never seen Gone With the Wind. Maybe I should.

Before you sit down with Gone With the Wind, be sure you have plenty of food and drink on hand. My mother took me to see it when I was a kid, before the age of video. When I got to college, I went with a boyfriend to see it. After one iconic scene, he turned and asked me where I wanted to go to dinner. I had to tell him to sit back down. It was the intermission.

Maybe that's why I never watched it. :eusa_think:

I should just go get the Cliff's Notes. I'm not a fan of movies in general; a bad one is always slow torture.
The usual, woman (Scarlett) oves a guy (Ashley) who marries someone else, wise-cracking smuggler loves her, even though he knows she loves the other guy, the guys go off to the Civil War, poverty on the wrecked plantation, she marries smuggler, she's a social embarrassment, he first is determined to spoil her into loving him, then it's "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Get the Cliff Notes.

Big Stuff in 1939 when my mother was young, along with the Wizard of Oz. Huge budget, special effects, I think one of the first films to be shot in color. There is a hilarious still of Ashley's wife, in bed swooning (childbirth scene) with her arm across her forehead, being attended by Scarlett. Ashley's wife has, in her other hand, a copy of the script.

Frankly my dear the plot would be lost on me. I'd be scouring the film for its subliminal messages in the setting.

But an actor holding a script is a great clue. :thup:
 
So it wasn't like Gone With the Wind? Ashley and them out to protect the women folk?

Not for the founders, no. They were just bored over a Christmas and created an alliterative prank. The silly rituals and goofy costumes and K-alliterations were taken over months later by existing elements like "night riders" who had been running since at least the 18th century. Interestingly Abe Lincoln's father was one.

I've actually never seen Gone With the Wind. Maybe I should.

Before you sit down with Gone With the Wind, be sure you have plenty of food and drink on hand. My mother took me to see it when I was a kid, before the age of video. When I got to college, I went with a boyfriend to see it. After one iconic scene, he turned and asked me where I wanted to go to dinner. I had to tell him to sit back down. It was the intermission.

Maybe that's why I never watched it. :eusa_think:

I should just go get the Cliff's Notes. I'm not a fan of movies in general; a bad one is always slow torture.
The usual, woman (Scarlett) oves a guy (Ashley) who marries someone else, wise-cracking smuggler loves her, even though he knows she loves the other guy, the guys go off to the Civil War, poverty on the wrecked plantation, she marries smuggler, she's a social embarrassment, he first is determined to spoil her into loving him, then it's "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Get the Cliff Notes.

Big Stuff in 1939 when my mother was young, along with the Wizard of Oz. Huge budget, special effects, I think one of the first films to be shot in color. There is a hilarious still of Ashley's wife, in bed swooning (childbirth scene) with her arm across her forehead, being attended by Scarlett. Ashley's wife has, in her other hand, a copy of the script.

Frankly my dear the plot would be lost on me. I'd be scouring the film for its subliminal messages in the setting.

But an actor holding a script is a great clue. :thup:

You have to forgive me. I grew up very near Fort Lee, N.J., the first home of the movie industry before it shipped out to the desert in California, and when I was 7, 8 years old, I watched one of the large studios burn from the roof of my aunt's apartment house in Fort Lee. I always hoped that everything had been taken out of there, and I didn't watch a great historical loss. Early film involved nitro.

Sorry for the digression. :icon_lol:
 
Not for the founders, no. They were just bored over a Christmas and created an alliterative prank. The silly rituals and goofy costumes and K-alliterations were taken over months later by existing elements like "night riders" who had been running since at least the 18th century. Interestingly Abe Lincoln's father was one.

I've actually never seen Gone With the Wind. Maybe I should.

Before you sit down with Gone With the Wind, be sure you have plenty of food and drink on hand. My mother took me to see it when I was a kid, before the age of video. When I got to college, I went with a boyfriend to see it. After one iconic scene, he turned and asked me where I wanted to go to dinner. I had to tell him to sit back down. It was the intermission.

Maybe that's why I never watched it. :eusa_think:

I should just go get the Cliff's Notes. I'm not a fan of movies in general; a bad one is always slow torture.
The usual, woman (Scarlett) oves a guy (Ashley) who marries someone else, wise-cracking smuggler loves her, even though he knows she loves the other guy, the guys go off to the Civil War, poverty on the wrecked plantation, she marries smuggler, she's a social embarrassment, he first is determined to spoil her into loving him, then it's "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Get the Cliff Notes.

Big Stuff in 1939 when my mother was young, along with the Wizard of Oz. Huge budget, special effects, I think one of the first films to be shot in color. There is a hilarious still of Ashley's wife, in bed swooning (childbirth scene) with her arm across her forehead, being attended by Scarlett. Ashley's wife has, in her other hand, a copy of the script.

Frankly my dear the plot would be lost on me. I'd be scouring the film for its subliminal messages in the setting.

But an actor holding a script is a great clue. :thup:

You have to forgive me. I grew up very near Fort Lee, N.J., the first home of the movie industry before it shipped out to the desert in California, and when I was 7, 8 years old, I watched one of the large studios burn from the roof of my aunt's apartment house in Fort Lee. I always hoped that everything had been taken out of there, and I didn't watch a great historical loss. Early film involved nitro.

Sorry for the digression. :icon_lol:

Whoa wait --- "nitro"? :eek:

Fort Lee huh? You must know Richard Fader. :eusa_shifty:

Not to worry about 'digression' --- the OP actually never came back to essplain what his topic is about anyway. I think he's hiding in the bushes with Sean Spicer.
 
My apologies. It was nitrate. Here's an interesting article about the use of nitrate film and its history:

The Unlikely Story of How Nitrate Film Endures

Sorry, I grew up further out in Bergen County, farther from the bridge, so I don't know Mr. Fader.

Let's hope that the OP is not up to monkey business with old Sean in the bushes. The "conservatives wouldn't like it.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top